Affirmative action consists of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Race matters profoundly in America. It differs fundamentally from other "markers" of diversity, and it has to be understood on its own terms. It is morally wrong and historically indefensible to think of race as "just another" dimension of diversity. It is a critically important dimension, but it is also far more difficult than others to address.
The fundamental reason is that racial classifications were used in this country for more than 300 years in the most odious ways to deprive people of their basic rights. The fact that overt discrimination has now been outlawed should not lead us to believe that race no longer matters.
President Lyndon Johnson explained the rationale behind the contemporary use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: "You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still believe that you have been completely fair."
Much of the opposition today to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than two percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ENHANCES LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: Affirmative action enriches the learning environment by giving all students the opportunity to share perspectives and exchange points of view with classmates from varied backgrounds.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ENHANCES BUSINESS AND SOCIETY: Affirmative action programs serve the needs of the professions, of business, of government, and of society more generally by educating larger numbers of well-prepared minority students who can assume positions of leadership - thereby reducing somewhat the continuing disparity in access to power and responsibility that is related to race in America. Leading law firms, hospitals, and businesses depend heavily on their ability to recruit broadly trained individuals from many racial backgrounds who are able to perform at the highest level in settings that are themselves increasingly diverse.
BROAD-BASED SUPPORT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Professional groups like the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association, and businesses like General Motors, Microsoft, and American Airlines (among many others), have explicitly endorsed affirmative-action policies in higher education. Despite confusing mischaracterizations of affirmative action, polls indicate that most Americans favor continuing affirmative action programs. A growing number of public figures, including Democrats and Republicans, corporate CEOs, business owners, and university presidents have spoken out in favor of affirmative action.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT A QUOTA: Race-sensitive admissions policies involve much "picking and choosing" among individual applicants; they need not be mechanical and are not quota systems
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOT SINGLE RACIAL MINORITIES OUT: Minority candidates are, of course, by no means the only group of applicants to receive special consideration. Colleges and universities have long paid special attention to children of alumni, to "development cases," to applicants who come from poor families, and to applicants who will add to the geographic (including international) diversity of the student body.
FUTURE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY, NOT "REWARD": Selectivity and "merit" involve predictions about on-campus learning environments and future contributions to society. One of the most common misconceptions is that candidates who have scored above some level or earned a certain grade-point average "deserve" a place in an academically selective institution. That "entitlement" notion is squarely at odds with the fundamental principle that, in choosing among a large number of well-qualified applicants, all of whom are over a high threshold, colleges and universities are making predictions about the future, not giving rewards for prior accomplishments. Institutions are meant to take well-considered risks. That can involve turning down candidate "A" (who is entirely admissible but does not stand out in any particular way) in favor of candidate "B" (who is expected to contribute more to the educational milieu of the institution and appears to have better long-term prospects of making a major contribution to society).
BENEFITS OUTWEIGH COSTS: Paying special attention to any group in making admissions decisions entails costs; but the costs of race-sensitive admissions have been modest and well-justified by the benefits. The "opportunity cost" of admitting any particular student is that another applicant will not be chosen. But such choices are rarely "head-to-head" decisions. For example, there is no reason to believe - as reverse-discrimination lawsuits generally assume -- that if a particular minority student had not been accepted, his or her place would have been given to a complainant with comparable or better test scores or grades. The choice might, instead, have been an even higher-scoring minority student who had not been admitted, a student from a foreign country, or a lower-scoring white student from one of several subgroups that are given extra consideration in the admissions process.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HELPS, NOT "STIGMATIZES" MINORITIES: There is no systemic evidence that race-sensitive admissions policies tend to "harm the beneficiaries" by putting them in settings in which they are overmatched intellectually or "stigmatized" to the point that they would have been better off attending a less selective institution. On the contrary, extensive analysis of data shows that minority students at selective institutions have as a group performed well.
The fundamental reason is that racial classifications were used in this country for more than 300 years in the most odious ways to deprive people of their basic rights. The fact that overt discrimination has now been outlawed should not lead us to believe that race no longer matters.
President Lyndon Johnson explained the rationale behind the contemporary use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: "You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still believe that you have been completely fair."
Much of the opposition today to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than two percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ENHANCES LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: Affirmative action enriches the learning environment by giving all students the opportunity to share perspectives and exchange points of view with classmates from varied backgrounds.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ENHANCES BUSINESS AND SOCIETY: Affirmative action programs serve the needs of the professions, of business, of government, and of society more generally by educating larger numbers of well-prepared minority students who can assume positions of leadership - thereby reducing somewhat the continuing disparity in access to power and responsibility that is related to race in America. Leading law firms, hospitals, and businesses depend heavily on their ability to recruit broadly trained individuals from many racial backgrounds who are able to perform at the highest level in settings that are themselves increasingly diverse.
BROAD-BASED SUPPORT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Professional groups like the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association, and businesses like General Motors, Microsoft, and American Airlines (among many others), have explicitly endorsed affirmative-action policies in higher education. Despite confusing mischaracterizations of affirmative action, polls indicate that most Americans favor continuing affirmative action programs. A growing number of public figures, including Democrats and Republicans, corporate CEOs, business owners, and university presidents have spoken out in favor of affirmative action.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT A QUOTA: Race-sensitive admissions policies involve much "picking and choosing" among individual applicants; they need not be mechanical and are not quota systems
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOT SINGLE RACIAL MINORITIES OUT: Minority candidates are, of course, by no means the only group of applicants to receive special consideration. Colleges and universities have long paid special attention to children of alumni, to "development cases," to applicants who come from poor families, and to applicants who will add to the geographic (including international) diversity of the student body.
FUTURE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY, NOT "REWARD": Selectivity and "merit" involve predictions about on-campus learning environments and future contributions to society. One of the most common misconceptions is that candidates who have scored above some level or earned a certain grade-point average "deserve" a place in an academically selective institution. That "entitlement" notion is squarely at odds with the fundamental principle that, in choosing among a large number of well-qualified applicants, all of whom are over a high threshold, colleges and universities are making predictions about the future, not giving rewards for prior accomplishments. Institutions are meant to take well-considered risks. That can involve turning down candidate "A" (who is entirely admissible but does not stand out in any particular way) in favor of candidate "B" (who is expected to contribute more to the educational milieu of the institution and appears to have better long-term prospects of making a major contribution to society).
BENEFITS OUTWEIGH COSTS: Paying special attention to any group in making admissions decisions entails costs; but the costs of race-sensitive admissions have been modest and well-justified by the benefits. The "opportunity cost" of admitting any particular student is that another applicant will not be chosen. But such choices are rarely "head-to-head" decisions. For example, there is no reason to believe - as reverse-discrimination lawsuits generally assume -- that if a particular minority student had not been accepted, his or her place would have been given to a complainant with comparable or better test scores or grades. The choice might, instead, have been an even higher-scoring minority student who had not been admitted, a student from a foreign country, or a lower-scoring white student from one of several subgroups that are given extra consideration in the admissions process.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HELPS, NOT "STIGMATIZES" MINORITIES: There is no systemic evidence that race-sensitive admissions policies tend to "harm the beneficiaries" by putting them in settings in which they are overmatched intellectually or "stigmatized" to the point that they would have been better off attending a less selective institution. On the contrary, extensive analysis of data shows that minority students at selective institutions have as a group performed well.
Comments
Write New Comment ▼
Write New Comment
Sorry! This knol's owner(s) have blocked you from editing, making suggestions, or commenting here.